Dave Hansen wrote:

On Fri, 2008-11-28 at 10:53 +0000, Al Viro wrote:

quoted

quoted

+static int cr_ctx_checkpoint(struct cr_ctx *ctx, pid_t pid)
+{
+     ctx->root_pid = pid;
+
+     /*
+      * assume checkpointer is in container's root vfs
+      * FIXME: this works for now, but will change with real containers
+      */
+     ctx->vfsroot = &current->fs->root;
+     path_get(ctx->vfsroot);

This is going to break as soon as you get another thread doing e.g. chroot(2)
while you are in there.

Yeah, we do need at least a read_lock(&current->fs->lock) to keep people
from chroot()'ing underneath us.

True.
(while adapting older and safer code I omitted these tests with no reason).

quoted

And it's a really, _really_ bad idea to take a
pointer to shared object, increment refcount on the current *contents* of
said object and assume that dropping refcount on the later contents of the
same will balance out.

Absolutely.  I assume you mean get_fs_struct(current) instead of
path_get().

True.

Should change the type of ctx->vfsroot to not be a pointer, and do:

quoted

quoted

+     ctx->vfsroot = *current->fs->root;
+     path_get(&ctx->vfsroot);

and adjust accordingly in where the refcount is dropped.

What we need here is a reference point (this will change later when we handle
multiple fs-namespaces), which is the path of the "container root". Assuming
locking is correct so that current->fs does not change under us, it's enough
to get that path and later release that path.

BW, the current->fs is assumed to not change during the checkpoint; if it does,
then it's a mis-use of the checkpoint interface, and the resulting behavior
is undefined - restart is guaranteed to restore the exact old state even if
checkpoint succeeds.

Thanks,

Oren.

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-api" in
the body of a message to majordomo-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html